« Harvey’s online gag | Main | The value of the press »
Defamation liability for threads on blogs and news websites
By Steven | August 31, 2008
Remember the basic rule of defamation: you publish it, you’re liable for it.
That includes everyone involved in the publication. In a newspaper: the quoted source, the reporter, the subeditor, the editor, the publisher, the printer, the paperboy, and the bookshop. (The last three probably have a defence of innocent dissemination, as long as they’ve got no reason to think there’s anything defamatory in the paper).
Similarly, broadcasters are liable for the statements of their contributors – even callers on live talkback radio. That’s why they employ delays and dump buttons.
And so online. If you’ve got comments on your website, then you’re liable for them if they turn out to be defamatory. That’s certainly the case if the comments are moderated, and particularly if they’re pre-approved. But based on first principles, it’s also probably the case where the site simply invites comments and allows them to be posted.
If you’re managing a website and want to give yourself the best chance of avoiding liability for others’ comments, then don’t have anything to do with the comments, and put up a dirty great sign telling everyone that you’re not checking the content of the comments. Then stick to this. Don’t even reply to any of them, lest you give the impression that you’re reading them and therefore implicitly approving them. Then, if someone does complain about a particular comment, check it out or take it down. The possibility that you have avoided liability runs out at the point that someone draws it to your attention.
Now, I doubt even these precautions will work for you. You’re still publishing it, and you’ve invited the comments. You’re probably still liable for them. But they give you the best chance. They try to set you up as an “innocent disseminator” – like the bookshop – rather than the main publisher. They try to put you in the same position as the ISP. On current authority, ISPs are probably “innocent disseminators” – again, until they’re given notice that some content may be defamatory. At that point, they become potentially liable for it unless they remove it.
Out-law.com reflects the debate:
“Many lawyers I’ve spoken to now view the invitation of content – so if you have a comments section at the end of an article on a newspaper site – they view that as inviting comment and therefore you are responsible for it and therefore you probably want to consider pre-moderating all the content that goes there,” said Danny Dagan, a moderation consultant who has helped establish online communities for The Sun newspaper, amongst others.
On the other hand:
John Mackenzie, a litigation partner with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, disagrees with Dagen and Sparkes.
“It is likely that the courts will focus on whether or not a publisher reviewed content, rather than the form of the publication,” he said. “It isn’t likely to make any difference whether or not it is an invitation to comment or a bulletin board. They amount to much the same thing. If the comments are not moderated, the publisher is probably safe, at least until notified of any allegedly defamatory posting.”
Topics: Defamation, Internet issues | 50 Comments »
50 Responses to “Defamation liability for threads on blogs and news websites”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 31st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Does that mean that you don’t read any of the insightful comments we, your faithless readers, post on your blog?
Oh, no, wait. I guess you can’t comment on that. Dang.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
I’m taking my own advice (which probably means I have a fool for a client) and assuming that I”m liable for comments. My blog policy implies as much – as does the fact that I frequently reply to comments. So I’m stuffed.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I’ve noticed some blogs have comments that are demonstrably monstrous. Could someone lay a complaint with the Race Relations Office resulting from a blog comment? Does it make a difference if the comments are moderated? What are the likely repercussions if this is seen as an offence?
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I haven’t looked at this closely, but the offence in the Human Rights Act relates to publishing. I’m guessing that similar principles will apply: if you pre-approve or moderate, then you’ll be taken to have published someone else’s comment. Otherwise, you might be able to avoid being held responsible for it up until the point that someone gives you notice of the problem. If you have such notice, and don’t remove it from your site, it will be hard to argue that you haven’t published it then.
October 12th, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Pandora charms
Pandora charms
February 5th, 2018 at 5:12 pm
cheap pandora charms jewelry
cheap pandora charms jewelry
May 21st, 2020 at 4:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
May 31st, 2020 at 3:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 8:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
June 8th, 2020 at 11:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
July 20th, 2020 at 10:33 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 11:06 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 2:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 10:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 7th, 2020 at 3:21 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 18th, 2020 at 11:08 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 19th, 2020 at 11:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 76066 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 21st, 2020 at 3:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 7:06 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 85441 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 4:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
September 4th, 2020 at 8:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 5:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 10:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
October 16th, 2020 at 11:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
October 25th, 2020 at 4:41 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
November 4th, 2020 at 7:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
November 7th, 2020 at 1:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
November 11th, 2020 at 12:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 88701 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 9:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
December 5th, 2020 at 9:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
December 7th, 2020 at 2:55 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
December 11th, 2020 at 6:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
December 16th, 2020 at 8:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 42729 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
December 26th, 2020 at 7:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
January 2nd, 2021 at 12:26 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
January 9th, 2021 at 8:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
January 17th, 2021 at 1:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 59133 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
January 19th, 2021 at 3:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
February 18th, 2021 at 4:12 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
April 25th, 2021 at 4:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 54643 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
May 11th, 2021 at 2:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 88680 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
June 22nd, 2021 at 5:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 6:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 10:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 5:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 1:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 27th, 2021 at 5:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
August 31st, 2021 at 11:03 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 39571 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
September 15th, 2021 at 11:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 48584 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]
September 17th, 2021 at 8:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=151 […]